Thank you for this all-important refresher course in the People's Sovereignty, limited government, and the importance of the Constitution. I am bookmarking this page for the future.
I appreciated the timely - and pointed - discussion, and connecting these issues, and our assumptions, back to the particular histories that gave birth to them. Thank you.
This conversation runs into a familiar problem: it rests on vague definitions and unexamined assumptions. This issue has degraded mainstream political discourse for generations and we’ve now reached a point where the US government is in the hands of a regime that rejects election results. This is an unprecedented crisis that requires a serious and professional response.
Start with the central question: what is “limited government?” Properly defined, it's a government limited to protecting individual rights. This means the courts, the police, the armed forces. Nothing else. From this political foundation follows a capitalist economic system. A government that protects rights must also protect property, voluntary exchange, and individual choice.
IOW, liberal means advocating for rights-protecting government and capitalism.
I don't think there's a single voice in the mainstream that agrees with this definition, instead trying to reconcile "limited government" with socialism. Liberal does not have any socialist components. When Washington said, “each man shall have his own fig and his own vine, and no one shall make him afraid,” he's affirming the security of private property, not suggesting a right to seize and redistribute what others have produced.
That’s why it’s so difficult to reconcile classical liberalism with what is promoted today under the same label. Many contemporary academics advocate state control and redistribution, positions that stand in direct opposition to limited government. Simply appending the word “democracy” to “liberal” also doesn’t resolve this tension. If anything, it highlights the contradictions and lack of fundamentals. A liberal government protects rights; a democratic government does what the majority want, including violating rights. These are opposites. You can't have "liberal democracy" any more than you can have "square circles."
The deeper issue is how government is constrained. It's not enough to say that it's limited by "the people.” Public opinion cannot safeguard rights. In practice, preserving a free society requires a disciplined understanding of political philosophy, held and applied by political professionals. Just like any other profession. When that intellectual foundation erodes, so does the integrity of the system itself.
This erosion is precisely what we’re witnessing now reach a critical mass. A widespread loss of clarity about fundamental political principles has produced confusion, contradiction, and policies driving us towards civilization collapse. Until this lack of expertise in politics is addressed, our descent into third-world poverty and dictatorship cannot be averted.
Thank you for this all-important refresher course in the People's Sovereignty, limited government, and the importance of the Constitution. I am bookmarking this page for the future.
I appreciated the timely - and pointed - discussion, and connecting these issues, and our assumptions, back to the particular histories that gave birth to them. Thank you.
This conversation runs into a familiar problem: it rests on vague definitions and unexamined assumptions. This issue has degraded mainstream political discourse for generations and we’ve now reached a point where the US government is in the hands of a regime that rejects election results. This is an unprecedented crisis that requires a serious and professional response.
Start with the central question: what is “limited government?” Properly defined, it's a government limited to protecting individual rights. This means the courts, the police, the armed forces. Nothing else. From this political foundation follows a capitalist economic system. A government that protects rights must also protect property, voluntary exchange, and individual choice.
IOW, liberal means advocating for rights-protecting government and capitalism.
I don't think there's a single voice in the mainstream that agrees with this definition, instead trying to reconcile "limited government" with socialism. Liberal does not have any socialist components. When Washington said, “each man shall have his own fig and his own vine, and no one shall make him afraid,” he's affirming the security of private property, not suggesting a right to seize and redistribute what others have produced.
That’s why it’s so difficult to reconcile classical liberalism with what is promoted today under the same label. Many contemporary academics advocate state control and redistribution, positions that stand in direct opposition to limited government. Simply appending the word “democracy” to “liberal” also doesn’t resolve this tension. If anything, it highlights the contradictions and lack of fundamentals. A liberal government protects rights; a democratic government does what the majority want, including violating rights. These are opposites. You can't have "liberal democracy" any more than you can have "square circles."
The deeper issue is how government is constrained. It's not enough to say that it's limited by "the people.” Public opinion cannot safeguard rights. In practice, preserving a free society requires a disciplined understanding of political philosophy, held and applied by political professionals. Just like any other profession. When that intellectual foundation erodes, so does the integrity of the system itself.
This erosion is precisely what we’re witnessing now reach a critical mass. A widespread loss of clarity about fundamental political principles has produced confusion, contradiction, and policies driving us towards civilization collapse. Until this lack of expertise in politics is addressed, our descent into third-world poverty and dictatorship cannot be averted.